Case Digest (G.R. No. 8387)
Facts:
The case involves Enrique P. Brias y Roxas as the petitioner and John S. Hord et al. as the respondents. The events took place in Manila, Philippine Islands, with the decision rendered on February 5, 1913. The petitioner, Brias, was elected as a member of the board of directors of the Bank of the Philippine Islands during a shareholders' meeting on February 13, 1912. Subsequently, on February 19, 1912, he was appointed to the committee of credits. The powers and duties of the board were defined by the bank's by-laws, which included responsibilities such as inspecting stock issuance, fixing interest rates, and appointing bank employees.
On August 15, 1912, Brias requested to inspect the bank's books, but this request was denied by Hord, the bank's president. On October 24, 1912, the respondents claimed that Brias had resigned from his positions, declaring his offices vacant without his knowledge or consent. Brias contended that he had not resigned and sought ...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 8387)
Facts:
Parties Involved:
- Petitioner: Enrique P. Brias y Roxas, a resident of Manila and a duly elected member of the board of directors of the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI).
- Respondents: John S. Hord (President of BPI) and other members of the board of directors of BPI.
Election and Appointment:
- On February 13, 1912, Brias was elected as a member of the board of directors of BPI.
- On February 19, 1912, he was appointed as a member of the committee of credits by the board.
Dispute Over Resignation:
- On September 26, 1912, during a heated board meeting, Brias left the meeting after a confrontation with other board members.
- Respondents claimed that Brias resigned during this meeting, while Brias denied resigning and insisted he only withdrew from the meeting due to personal insults.
Subsequent Actions:
- On October 24, 1912, the board declared Brias’s position vacant, claiming he had resigned.
- Brias filed a petition for mandamus, seeking to be reinstated to his position and to have access to the bank’s books.
Key Allegations:
- Brias alleged that he was wrongfully excluded from his position and denied access to the bank’s records.
- Respondents argued that Brias had resigned voluntarily and was no longer entitled to his position or access to the bank’s records.
Evidence Presented:
- The minutes of the September 26, 1912, meeting were destroyed and later reconstructed by the board without Brias’s presence or input.
- Witnesses provided conflicting accounts of whether Brias had resigned or merely withdrawn from the meeting.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Burden of Proof:
- The burden of proving that Brias resigned rested on the respondents. The Court found that the evidence presented by the respondents was insufficient to establish that Brias had unequivocally resigned.
Conflicting Testimonies:
- Witnesses provided conflicting accounts of what Brias said during the September 26, 1912, meeting. Some claimed he said he was resigning, while others stated he only withdrew from the meeting. The minutes of the meeting, which were reconstructed without Brias’s input, did not clearly indicate a resignation.
Intent to Resign:
- The Court emphasized that a resignation must be clear, unequivocal, and voluntary. Brias’s actions and statements did not meet this standard. His withdrawal from the meeting was likely due to personal frustration and not an intent to resign.
Reconstructed Minutes:
- The Court noted that the minutes of the September 26, 1912, meeting were destroyed and later reconstructed by the board without Brias’s presence. This raised doubts about the accuracy and reliability of the minutes as evidence of Brias’s resignation.
Letter of September 28, 1912:
- Brias’s letter to the board president, written two days after the meeting, indicated that he had not resigned and still considered himself a member of the board. This further supported the Court’s conclusion that no resignation had occurred.
Mandamus as a Remedy:
- Since Brias had not resigned, he was entitled to the writ of mandamus to be reinstated to his position and to access the bank’s records. The Court held that mandamus was the appropriate remedy to protect Brias’s rights as a member of the board.